[Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Mathieu Pasquet mathieui at mathieui.net
Wed Aug 1 00:43:34 UTC 2012

> Is the text of XEP-0071 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? Have
> developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
> suggestions you have for improving the text.

7.6 states that the style attribute MUST be supported, but 7.6.1 on the
other hand shows a list of RECOMMENDED CSS1 properties. If a client does
not implement any of those properties, isn’t it the same as dropping the
style attribute (and therefore not supporting it)?

I am also not sure about the <strong/> and <blockquote/> elements: they
are shown as a recommended element to support (7.8), but the business
rules (8.7) states that they should not be used, but rather <span/> or
<p/> with appropriate style attributes. Is it only for backward
compatibility, then?

There is the matter of the <img/> tag that accepts a data:base64 as a
src, leading to very big stanzas. I think that maybe the XEP could state
that whenever possible, the use of base64 data should be avoided, at
least in MUCs, where the message is replicated as many times as there
are users, leading to high bandwith usage (although if I remember
correctly, most servers set the max stanza size to 10 KiB).

Finally, although we have a somehow working partial implementation of
XEP-0071 in Poezio, I wouldn’t count it as a proper codebase for XEP
validation, because the limitations of console clients do not allow a
full implementation (e.g. font changes, text-decorations other than
underline, relative margins, etc).

-- Mathieu Pasquet (mathieui)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20120801/468bfaea/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list